[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: specification by implications and example
Per Bothner wrote:
> > (set! ((lambda (x) x) y) V)
> It is valid syntactically. It expands to:
> ((setter (lambda (x) x)) y V)
> But since (lambda (x) x) does not have a setter associated
> with it, you'd get a (run-time) error.
The SRFI says nothing whatsoever about errors of this sort.
> But this is allowed:
> (set! ((if (random) car cdr) x) v)
But when Matthias asked whether the grammar was
(set! exp exp)
you said "No - that would be ambiguous". I took a guess as to what
that might mean, but you say my guess at something that would be
erroneous is "valid syntactically". So now I know neither what the
comment about ambiguity refers to nor what the SRFI permits.